Defective by Design - congresshttp://www.defectivebydesign.org/topic/congress
enStop the MPAA and RIAA shadow government: Oppose S. 3325http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/1165
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>
<strong>Update: Over the weekend, Congress sadly has passed the bill. But it's not law yet -- stay tuned for our next step.</strong>
</p>
<div style="float: right; width: 100px;"><script type="text/javascript">reddit_url='http://www.defectivebydesign.org/stop-revised-riaa-ip-enforcement-bill-s3325'</script>
<script type="text/javascript">reddit_title='Stop the MPAA and RIAA shadow government: Oppose S. 3325'</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.reddit.com/button.js?t=3"></script></div>
<p>In addition to all of the emails and phone calls they received from you,
Senator Leahy and friends received a stern rebuke from the Department of
Justice in response <a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/stop-riaa-ip-enforcement-bill-s3325">to their suggestion that the DoJ should be doing the RIAA
and MPAA's dirty
work</a>.The
DoJ said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We strongly oppose Title I of the bill, which not only authorizes the Attorney
General to pursue civil remedies for copyright infringement, but to secure
"restitution" damages and remit them to the private owners of infringed
copyrights. First, civil copyright enforcement has always been the
responsibility and prerogative of private copyright holders, and U.S. law
already provides them with effective legal tools to protect their rights....</p>
<p>Second, Title 1's departure from the settled framework above could result in
Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private
copyright holders regardless of their resources. In effect, taxpayer-supported
Department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary
recovery going to industry.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(EFF has a <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/DoJ%20letter%20re%20s3325.pdf">copy of the full
letter</a>.)</p>
<p>In response, the text of <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.3325:">S.
3325</a> has now been updated
to strike out the civil enforcement provisions. This is very good news, but
other nasty parts of the bill remain.</p>
<img src="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/sites/defectivebydesign.org/files/images/stop-mpaa-riaa-png-web_1.png" alt="" />
<h3>Please <a href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Stop_the_MPAA_and_RIAA_shadow_government">digg this story</a> to help get the word out about the
remaining problems with the "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Act":</h3>
<ul>
<li>It still has new and extremely broad provisions for <strong>seizing property</strong>
like computers and servers. Such powers are notoriously abused to go on
fishing expeditions, and since servers are often shared, people who are not
even the targets of investigation will be hurt in the process.</li>
<li>It still creates an <strong>Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator</strong>. The
title and responsibilities of this position are just as <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html">misleading and
confusing</a> as the bill,
attempting to address issues like copyright and trademarks together when
they should be addressed separately. Creating and maintaining this position
is a severe misuse of public resources and gets the industry's foot in the
door for future malicious action -- like promoting Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM).</li>
<li>It still creates five <strong>International Intellectual Property Law Enforcement
Coordinators</strong>. These positions are tasked with encouraging other countries
to follow our lead, in an attempt to replicate the provisions of this bill
and the corresponding industry control all over the world.</li>
<li>It still commits <strong>$25,000,000</strong> for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013
as grants to state and local law enforcement for doing "training and
education programs." We all know what the RIAA's "training and education"
programs look like. We shouldn't be funding distribution of their
propaganda.</li>
<li>It announces the "Sense of Congress" as agreement with the idea that such
enforcement actions should be one of the government's highest priorities,
and tries to paint achievement of the entertainment industry's selfish
interest as one of the most pressing tasks facing our society. Any senator
who agrees to such a statement must be directly in the industry's pocket.
<strong>We know where Leahy stands -- on his top five contributors list from
2003-2008, we see Walt Disney, Time Warner, and Viacom.</strong> Congress should
instead be committing itself to investigating the industry's underhanded,
abusive and corrupting legal tactics.</li>
</ul>
<p>It's also time for another round of phone calls, voicemails and emails to let our
senators know that the bill is still unacceptable.</p>
<p>Please <a href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm">contact your
senators</a>
again, as well as:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://obama.senate.gov/contact/">Barak Obama</a> -- (202) 224-2854</li>
<li><a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm">John McCain</a> -- (202) 224-2235</li>
</ul>
<p>The timing here is critical, so don't worry if it's after office hours -- you
can still leave a voicemail.
</p>
<p>When you call or write, you might say something like:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hello, my name is NAME and I'm a potential voter in STATE. I'm contacting you
to reiterate my opposition to S. 3325, "The Enforcement of Intellectual
Property Act," sponsored by Senator Leahy. I know that recently the bill was
changed to remove some parts that I opposed -- like those that would have had
the Department of Justice filing civil suits for copyright infringement
against citizens. I'm happy this change was made, but it's not nearly enough.
The provisions mandating property seizure are far too broad, and would lead to
substantial interference in legitimate work and to intimidation of lawful
sharing. The new "Sense of Congress" section sums up exactly what's wrong with
the bill -- maximizing the profits of the entertainment industry without
regard to the immense negative impact these enforcement actions have on the
public interest is the exact opposite of what the government should be doing.
Copyright supposedly exists to promote and encourage effective ways to share
knowledge and culture, not to inspire hoarding and prosecution. Please stand
against the corrupting influence of the RIAA and MPAA, and in favor of the
public interest -- vote no on S. 3325.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This bill is just one more in the long list of efforts by the entertainment
industry to use their wealth and influence to corrupt our government. From <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta">the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA)</a> to the Broadcast Flag, they are trying harder than ever to
manipulate the law against the public in order to protect their own profits and
prevent competition from the rapidly emerging DRM-free culture.
DefectiveByDesign will be continuing to expose their
efforts and the politicians who assist them. </p>
<p><em>Thanks to our friends at <a href="http://www.2600.com/">2600 Magazine</a> for their <a href="http://store.2600.com/spring2000.html">inspiration for our image</a> on this post.</em></p>
<!--BREAK-->
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-1 field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Topic:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/taxonomy/term/34">RIAA</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/topic/mpaa">mpaa</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/topic/congress">congress</a></div></div></div>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:28:46 +0000John Sullivan1165 at http://www.defectivebydesign.orgDigital Fair Use Bill Introduced in Congresshttp://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/943
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden"><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><p>Just read this over on the <a href="" target="new">Washington Post Blogs</a><br /><cite><br />
Reps. Rich Boucher (D-Va.) and John Dolittle (R-Calif.) introduced what they call the "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship" (or FAIR USE) Act they say will make it easier for digital media consumers to use the content they buy.</cite></p>
<p><cite><br />
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use," Boucher said in a statement. "Without a change in the law, individuals will be less willing to purchase digital media if their use of the media within the home is severely circumscribed and the manufacturers of equipment and software that enables circumvention for legitimate purposes will be reluctant to introduce the products into the market."<br /></cite></p>
<p>Sound good to me! Stay tuned for more information.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-1 field--type-taxonomy-term-reference field--label-above"><div class="field__label">Topic:&nbsp;</div><div class="field__items"><div class="field__item even"><a href="/taxonomy/term/10">drm</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/topic/congress">congress</a></div><div class="field__item even"><a href="/topic/politics">politics</a></div><div class="field__item odd"><a href="/topic/legislation">legislation</a></div></div></div>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:54:08 +0000Gregory Heller943 at http://www.defectivebydesign.org